so many trees are gone from Euclid Ave now, its hardly recognizable from when we grew up. used to be one huge tree dead center of each property and one on each corner of the property. 80% are now gone.

I'm sorry, I don't understand. I couldn't find The Record article online. What did it say? Can you post it?

Yes, the street will never look the same. I have pictures from the late 60's early 70's that show a dense canopy over the whole street. They were mostly swamp maples, though some have said Norway maples. The problem, of course, is that after 75 years or so, they become tremendous liabilities. They can cut homes in half, destroy cars and injure people when they crash down. We just paid $1800 to remove a maple on our property that was falling apart. That included stump grinding. We'll also need to replace part of the sidewalk a tree limb damaged.

We planted four ornamental pear trees on the curb. Not quite as "majestic", but more managable over the long term.

Borg was smart to get out before Superstorm Sandy. Knock the buildings down, landfill the whole property 3 to 5 feet higher, and then it's actually worth something to rebuild. This is the biggest single-site redevelopment in the history of Hackensack. Build something to define the City, to make us proud. To energize the downtown center. Not a Walmart, please. And if a WalMart is proposed, go right to ShopRite to help lead the opposition. They've hated WalMart for decades, and they kept the WalMarts out of NJ for a very long time.

That post in Eye on The Record was based on information from an usually reliable source, but I am not sure the transaction ever took place. In any case, NJMG never made any discussions public or discussed them in a story in The Record. Subsequent rumors were that Wal-Mart would lease the land.

That post in Eye on The Record was based on information from an usually reliable source...

Fair enough, but the "usually reliable source" was referred to in the article as "an anonymous source", yet you criticized someone today in the 2013 Election thread for hiding behind "a single name or an anonymous tag" - even though you and most everyone else here seem to know who she is BECAUSE of the single name she uses.

So, complete anonymity is good, but barely-there anonymity is bad?

I don't know her (or you), but I do find these inconsistencies to be a bit troublesome.

Usually reliable and anonymous are not mutually exclusive, and as you might know, newspapers often use anonymous sources. But if you are going to attack someone's position in the run-up to an election, you should use your full name and tell us who you support. You may know who Regina is, but I and lots of readers of Hackensack Now don't know who she is.

Mr Sasson, I do not know why you are playing this game. We have met, in person, at the council meetings. I give my full name each time I speak. You even asked me to sign your petition - which by the way you cannot do on public property. So, just stop the silliness with trying to "out" me.

If full names were required on this site the Editor would be the one to make that call. And he knows who I am too! That information is not required for discussion. I apologize if you feel I attacked your position, but that's the nature of the beast called politics and no reason to try to "call me out". I am not running for council, you are.